TFred
Regular Member
imported post
It is rare to read an editorial displaying such total ignorance, not only of general open carry and Second Amendment issues, but also of the specific details surrounding a story. Ms. Hain has not sought out publicity, but in fact has tried to avoid it, granting limited press interactions at the urging of her counsel and to further the open carry cause in general. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for her willingness to take the publicity on this matter, and for her efforts to hold those who abuse their power to account for those actions.
This editor really needs some educating.
TFred
http://www.ldnews.com/opinion/ci_11336108
Can’t find wrong that needs righted
Editor:
Lebanon Daily News
I am forced to apologize to the reading public. With so many other concerns to write about, I tried to restrain myself from writing on the Meleanie Hain story but could do so no longer.
With her lawsuit pending before the courts, I now am experiencing an outrage so great that only a dismissal of the case by the judge can quell it. I am appalled at people who create unusual or controversial situations and then try to profit from them. Hain’s case is typical of this process.
What damages did she incur? If you are wrongly accused of a crime, you cannot recoup your attorney costs! Since she chose not to use her concealed-weapons permit at the soccer game, what trauma did she suffer? She appeared to revel in the publicity of the story. She claims that Sheriff Michael DeLeo has traumatized her in some way. If I understand correctly, she was not prohibited from owning her gun after her concealed-carry permit was temporarily revoked.
Let me first clarify by saying that I do not like guns, have never owned one and have never shot one. However, I do respect the right of individuals to own them based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. But I also recognize the limitations of this amendment. Restrictions on gun ownership and/or gun responsibilities are not designed to take weapons away from the general populous. To extrapolate the Second Amendment to the degree many gun lobbyists and some (not necessarily the majority) gun advocates do would lead to the ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles by those who could afford them. To this end it must be noted that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure that the federal government could not raise a standing army more powerful than the state militias.
I would appreciate an explanation from gun owners who have obtained a concealed-weapons permit as to why someone would go through the painstaking process of obtaining a concealed-weapons permit and then not utilize that permit (and common sense) when attending a youth soccer game. Why would someone do something such as this unless to draw attention to a political cause advocated by that individual and other associates?
Now they wish to be rewarded in a court of law and profit from an action that traumatized many people at that soccer game. Maybe those who attended that soccer game should seek litigation against and compensation from the individual that caused the trauma imposed on both their children and themselves. Wouldn’t that be poetic justice?
Karl Kohr
Lebanon
It is rare to read an editorial displaying such total ignorance, not only of general open carry and Second Amendment issues, but also of the specific details surrounding a story. Ms. Hain has not sought out publicity, but in fact has tried to avoid it, granting limited press interactions at the urging of her counsel and to further the open carry cause in general. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for her willingness to take the publicity on this matter, and for her efforts to hold those who abuse their power to account for those actions.
This editor really needs some educating.
TFred
http://www.ldnews.com/opinion/ci_11336108
Can’t find wrong that needs righted
Editor:
Lebanon Daily News
I am forced to apologize to the reading public. With so many other concerns to write about, I tried to restrain myself from writing on the Meleanie Hain story but could do so no longer.
With her lawsuit pending before the courts, I now am experiencing an outrage so great that only a dismissal of the case by the judge can quell it. I am appalled at people who create unusual or controversial situations and then try to profit from them. Hain’s case is typical of this process.
What damages did she incur? If you are wrongly accused of a crime, you cannot recoup your attorney costs! Since she chose not to use her concealed-weapons permit at the soccer game, what trauma did she suffer? She appeared to revel in the publicity of the story. She claims that Sheriff Michael DeLeo has traumatized her in some way. If I understand correctly, she was not prohibited from owning her gun after her concealed-carry permit was temporarily revoked.
Let me first clarify by saying that I do not like guns, have never owned one and have never shot one. However, I do respect the right of individuals to own them based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. But I also recognize the limitations of this amendment. Restrictions on gun ownership and/or gun responsibilities are not designed to take weapons away from the general populous. To extrapolate the Second Amendment to the degree many gun lobbyists and some (not necessarily the majority) gun advocates do would lead to the ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles by those who could afford them. To this end it must be noted that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure that the federal government could not raise a standing army more powerful than the state militias.
I would appreciate an explanation from gun owners who have obtained a concealed-weapons permit as to why someone would go through the painstaking process of obtaining a concealed-weapons permit and then not utilize that permit (and common sense) when attending a youth soccer game. Why would someone do something such as this unless to draw attention to a political cause advocated by that individual and other associates?
Now they wish to be rewarded in a court of law and profit from an action that traumatized many people at that soccer game. Maybe those who attended that soccer game should seek litigation against and compensation from the individual that caused the trauma imposed on both their children and themselves. Wouldn’t that be poetic justice?
Karl Kohr
Lebanon
